Closing Military Bases

Our fearless leader Donald Rumsfeld has announced his decisions regarding the BRAC 2005 process (Base Realignment and Closure). Here's how it works: Sec of Defense sends his recommendations to a Commission (appointed by Pres and confirmed by Senate), the Commission holds hearings, then sends their recommendations to President, then Pres. Bush sends his recommendations to the entire US Congress. At that point, Congress can do nothing and the President's recommendations become law. However, Congress vote to dismiss the recommendations (a Congressional Veto) and the entire BRAC process is cancelled. BRAC is set up by legislation passed by Congress to give the Executive Branch the intiative to close bases, and realign military operations, to save money and have a more efficient military operation (read that, "save money.") Politics and military spending, including the location of military bases, has always involved politics, in addition to military strategy. Politicians want Pentagon money spent in their home districts. So how to get politics out of military spending decisions? Let the Executive branch make the initial decisions, subject only to a Congressional veto that would vote down the entire BRAC recommendations (all or nothing). Now all these politicians are coming out to argue against base closures: Sen. Lieberman from Conn wants to block the closure of the New London sub base: those subs are part of the cold war, and we dont need two major sub bases. Besides, can you imagine the private sector development potential of all that land on the Connecticut River? Imagine the yaught clubs, condominiums and such that can be built there! Corporate office centers! Closing that base could result in more jobs, more investment. Its the bases in the middle of nowhere that pose the biggest problem, like Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, home to half of our B1 bombers: there is nothing there, no hope for private sector investment, and republican senator John Thune who defeated Sen Daschle last year campaigned that he could better prevent the base from being closed (since he is a Repub and buddies with Bush - ha! BRAC doesnt operate that way, dummie). Dont forget, it was Congress who created the BRAC process, and the only way they can oppose one base closure is to veto the entire package (that was the way they designed it - so they would essentially write themselves out of the process, except for the veto part). The veto is what I have called the "drop dead" aspect of BRAC (I have written a paper on this subject, soon to be published): The executive branch is motivated to come up with bipartisan cuts, acceptable to Congress, or else all their work is for nothing (Congress vetos it). How much time so they have to save their bases? Not much: Congress decided that hearings would only take weeks, not months, to prevent opposition from forming (move quickly if you want to terminate a government program - see my "Terminating Public Programs" book). So are they guys really upset with base closures in their states, or are they simply playing politics with the voters? Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania initially supported the cuts in PA, until the Democrats attacked him and now he is vowing to fight the closures in PA - ha! As though he is really committed. I feel bad for the people around Ellsworth AF Base - all the restaurants, service industry, apartments, even the housing market will go down the tubes when that base closes - but we cant operate military bases as a kind of welfare for a local community. Maybe those people in S Dakota should move to New London CT - I've heard there is going to be an economic expansion there soon! That's the way it works.......(people in S Dakot and New London must have seen this coming 10 years ago with the end of the cold war).